On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote:
> On 17/12/13 01:51, Leandro Motta Barros wrote: > >> I have some code using the old "all.d" idiom, which I am changing to use >> the new >> "package.d" feature. >> > > Related question -- it seems like rdmd doesn't like package-based code, > and can't resolve dependencies as it can with regular modules. Is there > any kind of timeframe/roadmap for fixing this? > With these simple examples I sent, rdmd seem to resolve dependecies correctly. For example, with this last example I sent (which prints the class name): $ rdmd main.d mylib.util.Foo $ dmd main.d main.o: In function `_Dmain': main.d:(.text._Dmain+0xb): undefined reference to `_D5mylib4util3Foo7__ClassZ' collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status --- errorlevel 1 $ dmd main.d mylib/util.d $ ./main mylib.util.Foo In this case, at least, rdmd correctly resolved, compiled and linked mylib/util.d, which was imported through a package. LMB